User talk:Teeninvestor

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Teeninvestor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Updown

A tag has been placed on The Updown requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Thingg^⊕⊗ 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "FaceKoo"

A page you created, FaceKoo, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a website, but it does not indicate how it is important or significant, and thus why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for websites in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. ^{What I do}Xenocide^{Talk to me} 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that it is considered vandalism to remove speedy deletion templates from articles you created. I agree with the assertion that FaceKoo is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, but in the future, place the hangon template, explain why the subject is notable on the talk page, and improve the article to prove notability. An admin or another user will review the facts and remove the template if there is indication of notability. However, removing the speedy delete template as you did in the future could result in warnings and even blocks. If you have any other questions feel free to post on my talk page. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Union busting. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hello, Teeninvestor. You have new messages at Theseeker4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

Hy there I'm hereby informing you that I think that your recently created article Comparison between Roman and Han Empires seems in my view to have several problems and to fail in several official Wikipedia policies. I presented the whole case at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Teeninvestor, I surely will have a look again over the next days. But in general it is hard to compare them (since all is in the past we might not have all info or history books don't tell the "truth"; both empires didn't fight each other until one empire destroyed the other or caused much damage, ...). There can be set hypotheses e.g. like in Counterfactual history and then provided facts (figures, dates, sources which are not from WP, ...) which help to understand better. And other parties can have other/different hypotheses and build facts on these. A methodical approach when creating the article always helps. You must see like: most people are used to a certain style in WP articles, so they probably expect that new articles are then the same. But that takes time.
In general I'd say there is nothing like: one empire wins and the other loses. Or one contributor has more right than the other. In perhaps 300 years when we have more info about that time periods we might know better. No matter what: seeing all as an interaction process between users is a good thing and if in the end it can not stay at Wikipedia, I am sure Wikiversity welcomes this. ----Erkan Yilmaz 23:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

So, how are things going ? As I see quite hectic day around that article - did not read all. It's always better to make things not personal and probably also let some time pass. Then other contributors also stay positive. If I were you I'd take the provided feedback so far (people invested time to give feedback also - that is interaction, you could also use the Wikipedia:Chat for more interaction) and build the article either on Wikiversity or perhaps in your Wikipedia user namespace. And then if it has a certain degree invite people again to have a look. What do you think ? ----Erkan Yilmaz 19:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. you can find me in chat if you like, click here (you will recognize my nick), ----Erkan Yilmaz 19:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Teeninvestor, I prefer not to vote, because that would result atm in a not so favorable vote (unfortunately). I like the topic you have started there, but atm the article form itself is not yet appropriate for this wiki (if you work in WV things might not get immediately into AfD). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and for that it needs to be followed some "standards/rules" (this is what the other contributors are missing and trying to say - unfortunately the communication is atm not so that sender and recipient can transmit their statements well :-( ).

I think the most important thing in all this is: to take all what happened so far (feedback, your emotions, ...) as an experience. And improve the article as some have suggested or even in much more ways (either here as subpage of your namespace, e.g. User:Teeninvestor/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, or at WV). I believe in the future then this will produce much faster some articles. That topic is hopefully just the start of your Wikipedia career :-) quote: "I edit wikipedia because since it has given me so much knowledge, i think i should give back." Believe me, if you take one step back now, people will surely later be willing to help you more. Everybody wants new editors who contribute for free knowledge - as they do.

not sure if you have seen this already?

• Rome vs.Han china
• Talk:Rome vs.Han china

I am still in chat (also the next days) if you would need some explanations about statements (I made or others made). ----Erkan Yilmaz 22:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Good evening, what would you say, is the article better than at begin ? I have seen users also suggesting explicitly what they don't like. I'd start there and try to "win" them. This all is not about a group against the other. Where on earth can you easily find people who give feedback ?

I could imagine that it was quite hectic + energy consuming the last days because of the many interactions. :-( It could help perhaps to slow down (or taking some time off) in editing on that article ? There are so many articles out there waiting for you.

And most important: not the article is important here - it's the (Wikipedia-)experience you take with all that. I'd see this all really as more a good thing than bad. P.S. my offer with the chat still counts :-) ----Erkan Yilmaz 01:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing Issues

Hi TeenInvestor, while I like your premise and I like your ideas, I really think you should leave the article for other people. I made this point on the discussion but I'll reiterate again; it sounds hysterical, and the grammar... well, I suggest you take some time and read it aloud, as I gave up after the first paragraph. Please, if you want to win your debate, go through and give it a proper clean up, because only you can say what you really mean to say; it'd be a pity to see it lost under an editor's harsh changes that might not say exactly what you want. As of now, the edits will have to take your points one way or another because they are ridiculously ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tori-swann (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason I say hysterical is because I think you're trying too hard to justify everything you say by saying too much.

I'll just point out somethings I think you should rewrite. I attempted it, but there were far too many things I didn't understand.

First of all, you need a better introduction to each of your points. "Both of the empires were unprecedented in size, chronology and unity" ; "For most of the past two millenia, China was the largest economy on Earth. "Roman society was a relatively hierachial society." ; "The Romans extended their empire to its ecological limits to the west (the Atlantic Ocean) and the south (the Saharan Desert)." ; sentance like these are either ambiguous or covers one spectrum without the other. It's kind of minor, but definitely worth looking into. It should be obvious from the start what you're talking about, which it isn't.

"Below is a comparison of these two empires in several areas" is unnecessarily redundant. Also, in your introduction, you include a lot of somewhat irrelevant facts. You could just as easily had said:

"The Han Dynasty, which was first great land-based empire in East Asia and is synonymous with China, is often contrasted with the Roman Empire, which consolidated their authority around the Mediterranean world, as they were both powerful empires in their own right. These two empires made it possible for their subjects to live more peaceful and predictable lives than previously known. As their ideas laid the base for many intergral concepts in the east and west respectively, such as Confucianism and a common culture based on family-organized ancestor worship and the idea of being a citizen, it provides an interesting scope in which to view the world as we know it now." Or something of the like, depending on what your focus is.

Your Geopolitical evolution section is in need of a rewrite, because, as SAT prep books like to say, the best writing is normally concise. For example, insteand of Geopolical evolution, you could say, Formation or the Rise of the empires. Also, your grammar is a bit dodgy: "The subsequent collapse of both empires also bear striking similarities; both were split into two halves, one that contained the original core but was more exposed to the main barbarian periphery (the west in the Roman case, the north in China), and a traditionalist half in the east (Rome) and south (China)" It should be a colon, not a semi-colon, because you're explaining something that had been stated in the preceeding clause, but again this is up to you.

"Both armies had to fought a number of enemies" - wrong tense.

Also, this is only a few grammar mistakes, so you should definitely go over them again.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that you need to rewrite it so it's more concise and to the point. I see a lot of verbiage that could easily be more to the point and more factually compelling. Never use a big word when a smaller word can do, and use fewer words when you can. Also, find your point and get to it.

But hey, the reason I'm not making these changes already is because I'm not quite sure what you might mean, and again, some of these points are rather moot. However, I think I reflect the general tone when I say you should clean it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tori-swann (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think you are probably editing way too fast and adding stuff rather than cleaning up. I'm sure you know people's names get capital letters, but you wrote 'pines' instead of 'Pines', and you'd probably catch some of your spelling errors if you went over them.

Also, a pretty big issue, you should have started your research here, read all our guidelines on writing articles, layout, how to cite, etc. Even if nothing was deleted, there is a lot of cleaning up to do.

You need to also accept that if the article is kept, a lot of it will be deleted. Most if not all of the experienced editors agree that except for minor details the sources need to be sources that are comparing the two empires. Everything that isn't sourced in that way needs to be removed. As it says below in the window I'm typing in, we all have to accept that our writing may be 'edited mercilessly'. You need to just go with the flow with that, Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise and no one owns an article. dougweller (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki?

Hi Teeninvestor. Your comparison article would make an excellent learning resource at Wikiversity. I'm more than happy to import and help you set it up, though make sure you unify your account first to make the attributions easier :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It can be both, of course :-). Bear in mind though that the Wikipedia version won't end up looking at all like it does now because of the "OR" restriction (Original Research is permitted and encouraged on Wikiversity, unlike the other Wikimedia wikis). Let me know when you've unified your account... "import" brings over the page history as well as the page itself, so your username should be the same there for linking from the history. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Importing now. (BTW, you can't import... only Custodians have the tool for that (it comes with the delete and block buttons, so to speak).) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, see v:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. I'd recommend leaving notes on the talk pages of the folks you've been debating with to help it grow there :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

From my talk page (easier in one place):

Oh man wikiversity is lacking a lot of articles.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs) 15:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The linking works differently on Wikiversity... we don't have "articles", but rather subpages. Ask for help on the Colloquium: there's plenty of folks ready to help you. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you regularly import hte changes of the version on wikipedia to wikiversity if you see it and i'm not available? I'm not very familiar with wikiversity. Teeninvestor (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, we don't keep them up to date to each other, but rather let them develop independently. I think you'll find the working environment a lot better on wv in any case (you seem to have attracted the deletionists here), so it's likely the wp article that will need updating, rather than the other way around. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ya damn deletionistsTeeninvestor (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well don't take them the wrong way: deletion discussions are the way people decide on what's appropriate for the encyclopedia and what's not. I don't think you'd like my vote... as I said before, it looks like an academic thesis, not an article :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

I would very much like to help you understand this. You have said that the 'OR' problem is resolved, which leads me to think you still don't understand what it is. Rather than lecture you, could you possibly explain what you think is our policy on original research (I presume you have read WP:OR?) and why you think there isn't any in the article? Because this is the basic bone of contention. This is important - I can see you as a valuable contributor to Wikipedia but it can take time to understand how it works and how it is extremely different from writing an essaym, for instance. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Some advice

Take the high ground and disengage from your debate with Flamarande at the OR noticeboard, as the discussion there is essentially over. The noticeboard really isn't the place to debate the article, and continuing to attempt to do so at the noticeboard simply alienates other editors. Let Flamarande "have the last word" if necessary.

Looking at the comments at the AfD, I will hazzard a guess, and say that the article will not be deleted. If so, the next step will be to rewrite the article and fix the OR issues. But the place to discuss these issues is back at the article talk page, not on the noticeboard. Good luck with your future editing. Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Since you are new, I recommend you read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to learn how to properly post on talk pages, especially the technical and formatting guidelines. Thanks, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. (response to your comment on my talk page)

Oof, I've been off-wiki for under 12 hours, and it looks like the shit hit the fan. I would like to point out that as far as I can tell, you have not been banned from anything - just warned. Anyway, it's truly tough and upsetting to see you - someone who clearly very much means well - have such hard times, especially in your first couple of weeks of active editing. I do hope you continue editing here, and don't get overly discouraged by this incident. Looking ahead, though, it's important to keep in mind something that is very often forgotten by a lot of editors: that in the vast majority of conflicts, all parties are essentially on the same side as they have the same goals - to build a great encyclopedia. There are just different understandings of how that needs to be done. The keys to successful resolution are: 1) always remain civil. You did this very well, for the most part. There were a few times that you got to a point of borderline rudeness - which is very, very easy to do in such a siutuation. I'm not going to point out these instances; it would be better, I think, for your development as a fine editor, for you to identify them yourself. 2) achieving consensus is very important - even if it means conceding parts of your argument, or perhaps refraining from making contentious edits while the discussion is still ongoing. Again, I highly encourage you to continue working on Wikipedia, because your enthusiasm can make you a very valuable asset to the project. Bear in mind that sometimes more experienced editors might have, not so much a better understanding of policies, but a better understanding of the community standards and agreements by which these policies are applied. If you do decide to continue editing, I'd like to offer my help. Please feel free to come to my talk page with any sort of question about editing on Wikipedia. Good luck. -Seidenstud (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Off to bed, but I agree with Seidenstud. I think, though I'm tired, with everything he's said above. dougweller (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT

Hi -- would you please look at the above? All the sources should be used as inline citations, and there should be no 'sources' section, as readers need to be able to verify every claim and know where it comes from. This is why we generally need page numbers for books, to make it easier to verify statements. You wouldn't do this I'm sure, but editors have in the past just added books as references with no page numbers thinking no one would try to find what the book actually said. Anyway, the layout guide should be used because otherwise there are editors who will come in and change the layout in ways others might not like (there are a number of editors who specialise in specialist editing tasks such as spelling, layout, fixing citations, etc). Thanks. dougweller (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Misc comments

By the way, if you were under the impression I was homing in specifically on you for copyvio, I wasn't, see this for instance as: [1] where I removed a large part of the article as straight copyvio. And on another subject, yes, I don't know how a tv program from last night is notable, at least yet. If that notice isn't removed within 5 days, someone will delete the article. And I saw that as I was using your history as a convenience to get to the comparison article. dougweller (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Job!

I love your article Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Have you considered adding pictures? There should be plenty in Wikimedia Commons. Do take the time to browse through some pictures for the Roman Empire and Han China. Take care, and Happy New Years!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no cannons were used, because the "cannon" did not exist in the early 12th century. They had gunpowder formulas which were powerful enough to burst through bamboo casings, but it was not until the late 12th century that the Chinese enriched gunpowder formulas with enough potassium nitrate to burst through iron shells. However, these iron shells were not shot from cannon; they were lobbed from siege machines like bombs or grenades. The earliest confirmed specimen for a small bronze hand cannon from China dates to the late 13th century. Actual heavy field-size metal cannons which have been discovered in China date no earlier than the early 14th century, the Yuan period.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I like the content, but for this to be a Good Article, there are a lot of statements which lack citations where they are sorely needed. Don't get me wrong, you have many citations so far, but maybe you should even shoot for a featured article later on instead, given the size, scope, and breadth of the article so far.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy lately and could not respond right away. Until recently, there were whole gigantic paragraphs lacking citations, but it seems that you've been diligent in the past few days in adding more. Good work so far; however, some statements still need citations, such as "Both Rome and Han China were known for their military prowess;" ok, which scholar says this and why are these two specific military powers being compared? The reader is left with this question: is this the opinion of a Wiki editor, or an established scholar? Isn't contemporary Parthia, Rome's Persian nemesis, also known for its military prowess? You do have some direct statements about specific scholars comparing the two civilizations; for example, your mentioning of Yuri Pines in the first section on the creation of both empires. However, I think a lot of material can be scrapped since it seems that you yourself have been linking various similarities between the two empires without the direct comment of scholars. Something to think about as you push forward.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison Roman/Han

See the talk page. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's linked on the section in the talk page. Just scroll down to the table and look for B-class. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we move this discussion to the talk page section so everyone can see possible improvements to be made? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Open invitation

Hi, please check User talk:Arilang1234#Co-editors needed for new article Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 Arilang ^talk 22:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please Refer to Talk:Anti-Qing sentiment#Anti-Qing sentiment exists Arilang ^talk 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! You seem to have much more knowledge on Chinese History than me, therefore, please consider working on the article here: User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name). I've made a somewhat generic start based on what I could make of the information on AfD (which was really confusing and seemed very OR), so please correct any factual errors. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiproject Military history

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Economy of the Ming Dynasty

The same reason that there's no Economy of the Tang Dynasty article: I didn't feel like creating a bunch of articles like I did for Song Dynasty. I do have a life outside Wikipedia, you know! Lol. Plus, as you already know, you will find a lot of information about economics in the Ming article already. If you must create an article, go ahead. I'm working still to get the history article draft of Han Dynasty finished.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated Economy of the Ming dynasty, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Need your vote

Please go to User talk:Arilang1234#AfD nomination of CCSTV New Year's Gala and give your supportive vote. Arilang ^talk 02:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is canvassing Arilang1234, not supposed to do this. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Need your help

I have created an article:User Arilang1234/Lao Baixing User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Lao Baixing, is about 老百姓, I think this article is needed. Could you help me to build it up? Arilang ^talk 08:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please check User talk:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Lao Baixing, your opinion is needed. Arilang ^talk 03:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Lao Baixing

Since Lao Baixing is created, I think most of the English word Chinese in all of these history articles such as Qing, Ming and Song, Ming can be replaced with Qing Lao Baixing, Ming Lao Baixing, and Song Lao Baixing. What you think? Arilang ^talk 23:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Past colonialism

As per your response to me on Arilangs talk page, Im not really sure you can call the Roman Empire as barbaric in that sense as the reason for Carthage burning was not just to show dominance over the people. British colonialism figure of 130million? do you have anywhere to link me to specifically about this? Ill agreee with American, Japanese and potentially Russian empire actions are easier to define. Im interested in what you have to say, im not saying China was brutal but certainly the way of rulership caused deaths in past dynasty's too? thanks--CorrectlyContentious 08:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

History of the Han Dynasty

Thanks! Well, as usual, I'm always busy. These days, it's hard for me to pay as much attention to Wiki as I did in the past. The main article on Han Dynasty will be updated in time, but I've got four more branch articles to work on first (society and culture, government, economy, and science and technology). When those are done, I'll work on the main article. Your work on it so far is most welcome considering its dinky size and the poor shape that it is still in. I also made a comment on the Economy of the Ming dynasty article; are you going to provide a link for it in the main Ming Dynasty article any time soon? It perhaps deserves its own section in the main Ming Dynasty article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it looks fine for now. When you gather enough citations from different sources, feel free to provide at least a paragraph in that new section explaining the branch article for Ming's Economy. Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, thanks! And also, sorry for not responding to you right away. Like I said before, I can't be on Wikipedia all the time! In regards to the Liu Song Dynasty, I don't have any specific sources on hand that I own (spare generic works like Patricia Ebrey's Cambridge Illustrated History of China, 1999), but if I was to rewrite the Liu Song article, I could visit my university library to scour necessary sources. That article, unfortunately, is not on my top priority list at the moment.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's ok to use primary sources (like the Book of Song 宋书) in certain areas of the article, like when you think a direct quotation from an original source is needed (for example, a memorial essay sent to the throne by a prominent official). However, according to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, you cannot use a primary source like the Book of Song alone; you must use books, journal articles, and commentary of modern secondary authors and scholars. I had a long argument with a person at Talk:Ming Dynasty about why the History of Ming cannot be fully trusted as a wholly reliable source given some conflicting information from other sources pointed out by modern scholars.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds acceptable.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine for now. It's at least now organized in a comprehensible way, with society and culture, as well as government, separated from the history section.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Economy of the Ming dynasty

On February 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Economy of the Ming dynasty, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Roman Empire

Hello, I find it interesting how you try to push your cause in Roman Empire. Isn't it still a month ago, that you deplored the community just so for keeping your OR article with your NPOV source and now you already browse boldly the Wikipedia, putting links to your nearly deleted page in the main page on the Roman Empire? Just let me tell you, it won't work that way. There are easily two dozen links which merit more their inclusion. Easily. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look

Hua-Yi zhi bian and the Unification of All under Heaven

Need more editors like you

Like I have mentioned on my talk page, I congratulate and salute you for your eagerness in contributions towards China-related articles. Please check Talk:Qing Dynasty and you might understand the long-term and the complexity, and politic involved, in trying to create well balanced China-related wiki articles. Like I have said before, please try you best to encourage other new editors to come to wiki, provided they know Chinese history like the way you understand history, because when we eventually come to consensus counting, or voting, we have the advantage of majority rules. Arilang ^talk 06:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Better and more effective

I read your discussion with Madalibi, and understand your arguments. Since wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, some of your arguments in fact can be turned into new wikis. For example:

1. Racial tension within Manchu Empire, we can talk about many unfair Laws imposed on Han Chinese by Manchu barbarians
2. Popular uprisings in Manchu Empire, we can talk about all those uprisings and rebellions aimed at Barbarians Manchu using Confucius inspired Han Chinese VS Barbarians
3. Racist remarks by Manchu rulers, quotations such as 寜给外人, 不给家奴, emphasize that in empress Cixi's mind, all the Han Chinese were her 家奴, slaves,booi-aha, not even Baixing, let alone citizens. Another good one is:量中華之物力,结与國之欢心(my translation:Just give them anything we can afford, as long as foreigners are happy, it's OK with me.)

Once we create these new wikis, we no longer need to try hard to convince other editors. Let facts speaks for itself, which is a much better and more effective kind of ways. Arilang ^talk 21:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ming vs. Qing

Hi Teeninvestor. I wanted to keep your points together with my replies, so I replied to your message here on my talk page. Madalibi (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Economy of the Han Dynasty

Economy of the Han Dynasty. She's a beauty, isn't she? I've placed it in the main Han Dynasty article already.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Song's weakness

It's not so much that the Song was particularly weak (they were able to consolidate the south and invade the Ly Dynasty of Vietnam); it was just that they had very powerful neighbors in the north, very different ones than during Han and Tang. The Xi Xia and Liao Dynasties were the opposite of the garden variety nomadic groups which populated the northern steppe during Han and Tang. These were fairly sinicized and settled states, capable of sustaining their own armies with agricultural foodstuffs (instead of like the Xiongnu relying on Han food through raids) and mustering huge forces of native Chinese in their kingdoms as well as nomadic cavalry. The Song wasn't able to thwart the offensives of the Liao Dynasty until it built the "Great Ditch" of Hebei province, which pretty much halted any hopes of Liao to employ a lightening-fast cavalry advance through the North China Plain. I think if the Song was able to retake the Sixteen Prefectures, then the Khitans would never have been able to recover, let alone threaten Song. The incidence of Liao's fall also provided the Jurchens with ample opportunity to catch the Song when they "had their pants down" so to speak, since the Song had to deal with crushing a simultaneous domestic rebellion, re-routing much of their forces, and failed to show up for much of the fight in the north. True, Song military command was weak and corrupt, and the civil establishment certainly made efforts to weaken the military command in fears of a return of jiedushi, but that's not the whole story. About the Cambridge thing, I've never been on it, so I wouldn't be able to tell you. In any case, I have to go, as I'm going to a friend's house. It is a Friday night, after all! Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, the Song was strangely disinterested and apathetic to their own situation; even after Kaifeng fell, Emperor Gaozong, worried about his own political survival as emperor, arranged only for the return of his mother and not for the demoted Huizong and Qinzong, since their return would mean that Qinzong would be once again thrust onto the throne. However, this is pretty much the same situation that happened with the Zhengtong Emperor and Jingtai Emperor of the Ming Dynasty.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the difference between Song and Ming economies deserves their own article; the differences can be explained sufficiently in the separate articles for the Economy of the Song Dynasty and Economy of the Ming Dynasty.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...that's an even broader topic. Perhaps you should consider spelling all of this out in the already-established article Economic history of China. That article looks painfully small and unattended to; it could use the touch of a good Wiki editor such as yourself.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Teeninvestor. You could start with Gang Deng's The Premodern Chinese Economy (1999); unfortunately I don't know too many sources "right off the top of the bat" that focus solely on the premodern Chinese economy. Do you live near a prominent library, preferably a university library? If so, check out their online catalogues and you should find a wealth of good sources.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Some things are missing on your timeline; don't forget to mention that the Yuan Dynasty favored merchants far more than previous dynasties, including the Song. Morris Rossabi (Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times, 1988) writes that the merchants during the Yuan were used as creditors for the Mongol nobility, as the Mongol-government returned the favor by providing merchants with low-interest loans, low tax rates on commercial transactions, and the freedom to amass their own armed retinue of bodyguards. The latter was unheard of in previous Chinese dynasties. The Mongol government especially favored Muslim traders, since they built key business relationships with Muslim countries of Asia. Kublai also treated artisans and craftsmen fairly well, having the government review their conditions periodically, granted them rations, exempted them from labor service, and made sure that they could easily compete with merchants in selling their wares in the market.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to look at notes I used for the Han Dynasty, look here User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox and you can navigate through all the sandbox pages.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The only free way I know how to access them is through Google Books, but that only allows partial views. The link with my notes to Cambridge History of China (Qin and Han version) above are notes that I took over a long period of time when I checked out the Cambridge History of China from my University Library at George Mason.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Tap-Dancing Whiskey-Drinking Christ! Lol. Have enough sub-sections? Seriously, though, articles are not allowed to exceed 100 KB of prose content. Period. Even if you limited each one of those sub-sections to about four sentences each, your article would probably still be hovering around a prose size limit that is unacceptable according WP:SIZE. You know what I would do? I would keep the sub-sections in there for now as markers for you to remember what you want to write about. However, I would eliminate about half of them as I went along; instead of having entire sub-sections for items like "Clearing of the shore line", I would simply mention such subjects in about a sentence or two, and then move on to the next vital subject or item that needs to be covered in the article. Do you follow me? In essence, you are going to have to sacrifice a lot of detail and only mention vital things if you want to have a comprehensive article for the entire history of the economy of China.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Best loved Han Chinese Hero 岳飛

Many Han Chinese considered 岳飛 as the Soul of Han Chinese, 民族魂, the four 漢字 his mother tattooed on his back 精忠報國, is the best remembered four 漢字. 文天祥 is another best remembered Song Dynasty Chinese. Arilang ^talk 06:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article

Please have a look zh:小中華思想, may be you can find some source and expand a bit? Arilang ^talk 06:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Large amount of content removed

Please have a look at HYZB article, I have removed contents that seem to have WP:OR problem, I hope you understand, just to avoid AfD tag. Arilang ^talk 05:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yuan dynasty

Teenage investor, sorry about that. I had a look at the history and couldn't make out what had happened. It just looked like a massive deletion, so I restored it. My apologies.

Bathrobe (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic History of China

Hi Teeninvestor. Developing Economic history of China sounds like a great and ambitious project! I'm glad you're getting involved in it. There are tons of books to recommend for all periods, but just for starters... On the Qing, you should probably start from the article called "Economic developments, 1644-1800" (by two senior economic historians called Ramon H. Myers and Yeh-chien Wang [Wang Yejian in pinyin]) in the first Qing volume (2002) of the Cambridge History of China (CHC). That article also cites all kinds of excellent studies that you can consult too. For the Ming, use the following two articles from the second Ming volume of the CHC:

• William Atwell's "Ming China and the emerging world economy, c. 1470-1650" (pp. 376-416)

• Martin Heijdra, "The socio-economic development of rural China during the Ming" (pp. 417-578)

The same book (CHC, Ming 2) also has articles on the Ming fiscal administration (by Ray Huang) and Ming communications and commerce (by Timothy Brook). You can get some of the CHC's from http://www.scribd.com, by the way.

Remember to use title sections that are as neutral as possible. For example, "proto-capitalism" should deserve a sub-section somewhere (because many studies discuss this issue), but it shouldn't be the name you give to an entire period (because other people have also called the same period "late imperial" and "early modern" as well, and Wikipedia needs to reflect all points of view found in reliable sources).

In the page on Qing-Yuan Legitimacy debate, I'm pushing you again to use reliable sources and to avoid original research, because these are really crucial policies to respect. If you manage to go by these guidelines, you'll become a great editor! Madalibi (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol! That would be a BIG page! I agree with PoA's comments: reduce the number of sub-sections and stick to the big picture. Even very important events or phenomena will have to be stuffed into a sentence or two. You should probably work on this in a sandbox, by the way, otherwise the whole construction site might put off a lot of visitors. Let me know if you need sources on specific periods and I'll try to find things. Good news: you can download the book Chinese Economy in Economic Perspective (1992) for free on http://www.scribd.com. Good luck! Madalibi (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi teen investor. There are no simple answers to your questions, and you are simply going to have to take many trips to a library to seek them all out. Walter Scheidel and Sitta von Reden in their The Ancient Economy (2002) even note the troubles of making the most accurate estimate of the overall GDP for the Roman Empire. Since the various governments of premodern India left us no concrete census information (unlike Chinese sources), it is all speculation when coming up with estimated figures for India's population in every period of the premodern age. As you noted, "India" was politically divided for much longer and more frequent periods of time than was "China". Even during the heights of Indian power, such as during the Mauryan period, Gupta period, and Chola Dynasty (despite much of the Indian subcontinent being ruled by contemporary Chalukya for the latter), the Indians (from what I gather) did not leave behind much literary evidence for the size of the populations that their rulers governed. The work of estimating their populations is up to modern historians, but I would imagine that not all of them have formed a solid consensus for each period of Indian history. If accurate figures for population can't even be discerned, then neither will you find satisfactory estimates for GDP (naturally). Also, since economics is not my specialty, I really don't have any strong familiarity with a range of books and articles on economics. I don't mind helping you a bit with your gigantic new project, but understand that my aid will be limited, as I am busy with not only my Han Dynasty project, but also real life concerns (we all have lives outside of Wikipedia, after all). I wish you the best of luck. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you're not asking for my help with a particular dynasty (that's a small job); you're asking for my help to gather information on economics for every dynasty and the modern age, and how the GDP of every period in Chinese history compares with every other world region's share of GDP in every era of recorded world history (or are you just trying to compare China's to India's? That much is unclear to me). Much of the sources I used for Economy of the Song Dynasty I have returned to the library; in fact, 80% to 85% of the sources you see used in my articles are ones that I do not personally own. Like I said, you are going to need access to a library if you are at all serious about tackling this project. Feel free to use my personal sandboxes if you need information on economics for the Han Dynasty specifically.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As for your sandbox, it looks like you have a lot of useful info so far, but I have a feeling that someone in a later Featured Article Candidate page will gripe about the size of the introduction (should be limited to about three paragraphs). Shorten it somehow; you will do your future self a gigantic favor.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I could help you out with the Han Dynasty section.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can do the Han and Song sections. I hope you don't mind if I don't immediately start work on them, though. I'm trying to finish Science and Tech of the Han Dynasty over at my sandbox page, but I can commit to your project as soon as that is complete.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Teeninvestor. Sorry to have taken so much time to get back to you. I'm still taking a necessary (actually very urgent) break from Wikipedia, and though I'd love to write the Qing section of that large wiki you're preparing, I'm afraid I just don't have time to do it. My dissertation has been dragging on for too long: I just HAVE to finish it! The problem is that as soon as I start writing wikis, I end up spending most of the day on it. I'll consider coming back if I think I've done something good on the dissertation front, and then the Qing economy will be one of my first priorities. Thanks for considering me! Madalibi (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

I have moved for you, because it really belong in the sandbox. User:Teeninvestor/Sandbox/Economic history of China Arilang ^talk 16:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

About Jurchen

I think this article could help the understanding of Hua-Yi relationship. http://news.boxun.com/news/gb/pubvp/2007/11/200711220949.shtml

Sci Tech of Han

Science and technology of the Han Dynasty is up and running. Now I can focus on your economic article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude. I just completed the monumental Sci and Tech of Han yesterday. I need a little break. I will add to the sections for Han, Tang, Song, and others in your article this week, but not tonight, and not anytime tomorrow before 5:00 pm, as I have a really tight schedule tomorrow. You will see additions; just not right away. Keep in mind, I just finished one of my largest projects; I need a little time to switch gears.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

New book on 秦始皇

Please have a look at http://news.boxun.com/forum/200902/lishi/11116.shtml, it should be a very interesting book. Arilang ^talk 03:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Qing and Yuan Dynasties debate

1. Please read the talk page, and offer some suggestions, change of name or something, like it is right now, I do not think this article run the risk of being deleted. Please consider Madalibi's comments, he has many good points. And I think the debate is wrongly used, because it restrict the scope of the article. Arilang ^talk 23:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China

If you are doing a sandbox of this article so you can improve upon it, please do not merge an actual Wikipedia article. Just create a sandbox version of the article and work on it. Because if you do merge an actual article, whenever someone type in "Economic History of China", it will direct your own user page's sandbox version, and that is unencyclopedic. Keep the actual article separate.--Balthazarduju (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

stop flooding things with communist crap

stop using communist sources crap. the communist source have been EXPOSED on Tibet during the Ming Dynasty. apparently i have a bigger brain and higher IQ than CCP historians, because i managed to figure out and find western sources that say tibet was a part of tang dynasty, and that mongolia was a part too. CCP historians are also brain dead in Goguryeo area. They need to claim goguryeo to say manchuria is a part of china, again i have a bigger brain than all CCP historians who have peanut sized brains, and i remembered that the Han dynasty had owned manchuria, and even korea, vietnam, and xinjiang. this proves the CCP is brain dead and making itself look dumb, fabricating ming dynasty claims, when evidence that tang ruled tibet is in their madarchod faces. you are blowing up the credibility of my sources by putting CCP crap right next too them, so people will accuse it of being innacurate... this proves the CCP is too stupid to rule china. .... Ullu ka pattha, kuttey ke bachhey, bohot sahi

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Teeninvestor. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~